Ex Parte Praisner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2017

13093997 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/093,997 04/26/2011 Thomas J. Praisner PA0016780U-U73.12-584KL 9775
12208 7590 04/28/2017
Kinney & Lange, P.A.
312 South Third Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415
EXAMINER
MCCAFFREY, KAYLA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
U S PatDocket @ kinney. com
amkoenck @ kinney. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS J. PRAISNER, EUNICE ALLEN-BRADLEY, and
NORBERT HUEBNER
Appeal 2015-004851
Application 13/093,997
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, FREDERICK C. LANEY, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Thomas J. Praisner et al. (Appellants)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction
over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real parties in interest are United
Technologies Corporation and MTU Aero Engines GmbH. Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-004851
Application 13/093,997
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosure is directed to “airfoil geometry for turbine
vanes.” Spec. 11. Claim 1, reproduced below from page 14 (Claims
Appendix) of the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A vane for a turbine engine, the vane comprising:
an airfoil section comprising pressure and suction
surfaces extending from a leading edge to a trailing edge;
an inner platform attached to the airfoil section along an
inner flow boundary, the inner flow boundary extending from
an upstream inlet region of the vane to a downstream outlet
region of the vane; and
an outer platform attached to the airfoil section along an
outer flow boundary, the outer flow boundary extending from
the upstream inlet region to the downstream outlet region;
wherein an area ratio of the outlet region to the inlet
region is greater than 2.4.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—4, 8—12, and 14—16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Graziosi (US 7,137,245 B2, iss. Nov. 21, 2006),
Praisner (US 2010/0040462 Al, pub. Feb. 18, 2010), and Amos (US
3,990,810, iss. Nov. 9, 1976).
Claims 5—7, 13, and 17—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Graziosi, Praisner, Amos, and Dixon (S.L. Dixon,
Fluid Mechanics and Thermodynamics of Turbomachinery, 146 (Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann ed., 5th ed. 1998).
2
Appeal 2015-004851
Application 13/093,997
ANALYSIS
Rejection Based on Graziosi, Praisner, and Amos
Appellants argue claims 1—4, 8—12, and 14—16 together. Br. 8—12.
We select claim 1 as representative, treating claims 2—4, 8—12, and 14—16 as
standing or falling with representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Praisner discloses a vane (vane 52) having an
airfoil section with pressure and suction surfaces, an inner boundary section,
and an outer boundary section. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that
Graziosi discloses a high area ratio turbine duct, and reasons that it would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have an area ratio greater
than 2.4, as claimed, “since it has been held that where the general
conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum
or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.” Id. The Examiner
further reasons that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
to include Praisner’s vane in Graziosi’s transition duct “to guide combustion
[gasses] as they pass through the duct.” Id. at 5. The Examiner finds that
Amos discloses a vane having inner and outer platforms, and reasons that it
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to include such
platforms with Praisner’s vane within Graziosi’s duct as “an obvious matter
of design choice ... for the purpose of containing the working fluid flow
throughout the transition duct into the next section of the engine.” Id.
Appellants traverse, first arguing that a person of ordinary skill would
not include Praisner’s vane in Graziosi’s transition duct for the reason
provided by the Examiner because Graziosi already provides structure
3
Appeal 2015-004851
Application 13/093,997
(injection nozzle 90 and a “first nozzle disposed immediately downstream
from the transition duct 30”) to treat and guide the flow through transition
duct 30, and, therefore, Praisner’s vane would be redundant. Br. 10-11.
The Examiner responds by noting that Graziosi’s “injection nozzle
(90) is present only to treat boundary layer airflow by injecting bypass
airflow into the boundary layer at the outer surface (60) of transition duct
(30) thereby preventing boundary layer separation at the outer surface,” but
Graziosi “does not disclose, teach or suggest that the injection nozzle (90)
guides airflow through the transition duct (30) at the center, inner surface
(50), or any other location other than the outer surface (60) of the transition
duct (30).” Ans. 2. Therefore, according to the Examiner, “a transition duct
vane is not redundant in view of the injection nozzle of [Graziosi] because
the vane is guiding airflow through the transition duct along the entire radial
length of the vane and not just at the outer surface boundary layer of the
transition duct.” Id. (citing Graziosi, 4:12-42). The Examiner also
determines that “the injection nozzle of [Graziosi] and a vane have the
different functions of preventing boundary layer separation and guiding
airflow, respectively,” further contradicting Appellants’ assertion of
redundancy. Id. at 3. Similarly, the Examiner also determines that
Praisner’s vane is not redundant to Graziosi’s first low-pressure turbine
nozzle because such nozzle “provides a different function of turning the
airflow prior to the first stage low-pressure turbine blades.” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. As correctly noted
by the Examiner, and in contrast to Appellants’ assertions, Praisner’s vane
52 performs a different function than Graziosi’s injection nozzle. Praisner
4
Appeal 2015-004851
Application 13/093,997
uses vane 52 “to guide airflow passing through the duct 50.” Praisner 112.
In contrast, Graziosi’s injection nozzle 90 injects flow along the surface of
the transition duct to energize the boundary layer, which inhibits separation
of the boundary layer along outer-body surface 60. Graziosi 6:26—33, 7:57—
59. Appellants do not direct us to, nor does our review reveal, any
disclosure or suggestion that Graziosi’s nozzle 90 is used to guide flow
through transition duct 30.
Graziosi’s first nozzle similarly performs a different function than
Praisner’s vane 52. Although Graziosi provides scant details regarding the
first nozzle, it does state that the first nozzle is part “of a low-pressure
turbine 40.” Graziosi 3:35—36. Thus, the first nozzle does not guide airflow
passing through transition duct 30, which is upstream from low pressure
turbine 40. Id. Fig. 1.
Appellants also note that Graziosi teaches that its transition duct 30
“is relatively short, such that the transition duct 30 ‘avoids the penalties in
weight, parasite drag, and support hardware associated with a transition duct
30 of greater length.’” Br. 11 (citing Graziosi, 8:17—21). According to
Appellants, “[ajdding a vane to the transition duct 30 of Graziosi, such as the
vane disclosed in Praisner, would increase the weight, parasite drag, and
support hardware associated with transition duct 30, contrary to the
teachings and motivations of Graziosi,” so the Examiner’s modification to
add Praisner’s vane to Graziosi’s duct “renders the transition duct 30 of
Graziosi unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.” Id. Continuing,
Appellants acknowledge that although
the addition of a vane to transition duct 30 of Graziosi may not
increase the length of transition duct 30, the addition of a vane
5
Appeal 2015-004851
Application 13/093,997
to transition duct 30 of Graziosi does increase the weight and
parasite drag of transition duct 30, which is contrary to the
primary aim of Graziosi for shortening transition duct 30.
Id. at 12.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. As correctly noted
by the Examiner, Graziosi discloses that the purpose of transition ducts is to
join relatively smaller high pressure turbine sections to relatively larger low
pressure turbine sections. Graziosi 1:17—19; Ans. 3^4. Appellants have not
provided supporting evidence or persuasive technical reasoning explaining
why adding a vane to transition duct 30 would frustrate its intended purpose
of joining high pressure turbine 20 to low pressure turbine 40.
Graziosi explains that a short transition zone is preferred because it
weighs less than a longer transition zone. Graziosi 4:1—9. Graziosi also
recognizes other problems “associated with a transition duct 30 of greater
length,” namely parasite drag and support hardware. Id. 8:17—21. As
correctly noted by the Examiner, Appellants have not provided supporting
evidence or persuasive technical reasoning explaining why including
Praisner’s vane 52 in Graziosi’s transition duct 30 would require an increase
in the length of duct 30. See Ans. 4.
To the extent Appellants’ position is that Graziosi suggests avoiding
the addition of any weight, and not just weight added due to an elongated
transition zone, we find that a person of ordinary skill would balance
Graziosi’s teaching regarding a short transition zone with the benefits of
providing guided flow through the transition zone. Accordingly, we find
that the Examiner’s determination that “one of ordinary skill in the art would
appreciate the advantage of adding a vane in order to effectively move
6
Appeal 2015-004851
Application 13/093,997
airflow through the short length transition duct over perceived weight and
parasitic drag penalties” (id.; see also Final Act. 5) is adequate to support the
rejection, even if such a modification would add weight to Graziosi’s turbine
duct. See In re Urbanski, 809 F.3d 1237, 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“As the
Board properly found, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to
pursue the desirable properties taught by Wong, even if that meant foregoing
the benefit taught by Gross. And Urbanski’s claims do not require Gross’s
benefit that is arguably lost by combination with Wong.”); see also
Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A]
given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages,
and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.”).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1—4, 8—12, and 14—16
as being unpatentable over Graziosi, Praisner, and Amos.
Rejection Based on Graziosi, Praisner, Amos, and Dixon
Appellants do not make any substantive argument regarding the
rejection of dependent claims 5—7, 13, and 17—20, instead solely relying on
arguments discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1. Br. 13.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, we likewise sustain the
rejection of claims 5—7, 13, and 17—20 as being unpatentable over Graziosi,
Praisner, Amos, and Dixon.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20 is affirmed.
7
Appeal 2015-004851
Application 13/093,997
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8